Posts Tagged ‘Senator’

« Older Entries

The DC Civil War Has Begun

Friday, May 22nd, 2009

As predicted by Marion Barry, the first volley of attacks has occurred in the DC battle over gay marriage.

The attack comes in the form of a bill with 30 initial co-sponsors, notably including Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Dan Boren (D-Okla.), that directly opposes the DC Council decision earlier this month to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other jurisdictions. The “DC Defense of Marriage Act” states that for all legal purposes, “marriage” means the union of one man and one woman. If it passes, it will undo the DC Council’s decision as well as preempt any DC marriage equality bill.

Conservative opponents of gay marriage in the District continue to claim that the majority of DC residents oppose gay marriage. Religious and other leaders plan to petition the Council for a citywide referendum. Again, the suggestion is made that a black-majority, traditionally made up of notably religious Democrats, opposes gay marriage and any attempt to recognize same-sex marriage from other jurisdictions. Until the referendum shows otherwise, that appears to be the type of hype and speculation that keeps naysayers like Bishop Harry Jackson of Lanham’s Hope Christian Church in the media spotlight.

Not only is this a gay rights battle, but it is also an example of the states rights conflict that sets DC apart from every other jurisdiction because, despite having a council, it lacks its own legislative representation. In other words, regardless of a decision made by DC local rules, the federal Congress can intrude with its own agenda.

Put succinctly by Jeffrey Richardson, president of the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club, a group that represents gay residents of the District:

The disappointing thing is that here we are fighting to govern and pass our own laws in the District of Columbia, and Bishop Jackson chooses to run to Capitol Hill to stand with congressmen to impose their will upon the residents of the District of Columbia.1

Of course, none of this will matter if Mr. Broun of Georgia, and company, get their way… (yes, unlikely in this Democrat-heavy Congress, but why again are we paying the salaries of people who waste time trying to pass such amendments when the economy is still tanking, people are still dying in distant and pointless wars, and so many other problems in this nation exist?)

May 7, 2009… Mr. BROUN of Georgia (for himself, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. JORDAN of Ohio, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. PITTS, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Ms. FALLIN, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. PENCE, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. TIAHRT, and Mr. ROGERS of Alabama) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage .

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

`Article–

`Section 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment’.

`Section 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’.

  1. The Washington Post [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Government, Law, Religion, Sexuality | 1 Comment »

Recall Bachmann ‘09

Saturday, March 28th, 2009

Minnesota has given the world Michele Bachmann, and I am not sure what to think of Minnesota right now. This is the start of the Recall Bachmann ‘09 campaign.

Minnesotans are often portrayed as no-nonsense, hard-working, dutiful Mid-Westerners. Northern Plains people, to be exact. They endure all sorts of weather from the searing heat of summer to the deep, bitter cold of winter. Still, they march on through life with a simple, solid approach, even if they are just a little different. At least this is the impression that Garrison Keillor gives me about Minnesotans. I haven’t listened to Keillor lately — I’m sure he must be as aghast that his people have turned loose Ms Bachmann on rest of the world.

How did Minnesotans choose to elect Bachmann in the first place? Certainly, she is physically attractive, so if Minnesotans were going by looks alone they didn’t make a bad choice. However, it’s difficult to imagine how Minnesotans chose their representation by looks alone, but maybe they aren’t really different than the rest of us, no matter how much Keillor tries to make me believe so. Maybe over the past decade the sensible Minnesotans decided to leave behind the cold, harsh winters of Minnesota for places like, maybe, Iowa.

I had no idea Bachmann even existed until that fateful afternoon last Fall when she appeared on Hardball. Chris Matthews often interrupts his guests and tries to pin them down on what they are saying (or perhaps what he wants them to say), but on that particular afternoon Matthews let Bachmann drive the show. He gave her plenty of room to loosen the garrote she put around her own neck, but in that sheer determination of a Minnesotan during a hard winter, Bachmann resisted any help and continued to tighten the garrote until she was extremely red, so to speak (never, ever blue). Certainly, her declaration of an anti-American (read communist) witch-hunt would cause Minnesotans to revisit their decision to choose her as a representative to the world. We are certainly aware that a few Minnesotans had a change of heart, but I guess in the final estimation of representational abilities, Elwyn Tinklenberg just wasn’t as sexy as Michele Bachmann. We all know that she wasn’t elected based on brains.

Of course, if you haven’t recently heard, Ms Bachmann has ventured into the subjects of world finance, constitutional law and general political anarchy (the two of which are rather incompatible, but I have a feeling that incompatibility has never been a concern to Ms Bachmann). Let’s examine the major points of Ms Bachmann’s political expertise:

  1. Bachmann thinks that we should have a McCarthyesque hunt for anti-Americans and terrorists amongst her peers in Congress. VIDEO
  2. Bachmann thinks that Tim Geithner has violated the Constitution, but fails to understand that the Constitution allows Congress to pass laws under which the Department of Treasury operates. VIDEO (first segment, but all segments are worthy)
  3. Bachmann believes that America has been invaded (by whom we are not sure) and she is working behind enemy lines. She encourages the citizens to overthrow their own government, the same government for which she participates as an elected representative. Article on TPM

I am protesting Michele Bachmann. I am protesting stupidity, no matter what it looks like. I hereby call upon all Minnesotans to demand that Michele Bachmann resign from her seat in the House of Representatives, and if she does not comply, to overthrow the government, specifically responding to Bachmann’s own request. I call upon Minnesotans to rid the political world of at least one stupid, incompetent and dangerous politician. Sure, this one among many, but we have to start somewhere.

I almost forgot. I am also protesting Minnesotans inability to decide on their choice of a US Senator. I guess Ms Bachmann finds that an acceptable distraction to her political antics and anarchy.  If I were a conspiratorialist, I would proclaim that Ms Bachmann had some hand in creating that distraction, but honestly I don’t think she has the mental capacity.

Mr Keillor, where is the Minnesotan sensibility here? Where are Minnesotans? Have they entirely evicted common sense from the land of ten thousand lakes? Or are they too busy counting ballots in the senate race to pay attention to what one of their own daughters is doing?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Religion | 13 Comments »

46% of Oklahoman Education Committee Members are Idiots

Thursday, February 19th, 2009

Good news: The Oklahoma Senate’s Education Committee has defeated legislation that would have allowed classroom discussion of alternative theories of evolution. Like Creationism. And Creationism. And, of course, we can’t forget Creationism. Even if in the guise of “Intelligent Design.”

Bad news: The vote was 7-6 against.

The bill: Senator Randy Brogdon’s Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act.

The crime: Assuming there should be freedom to fuck up the minds of schoolchildren with bullshit that is completely rejected by the academic community.

Check out a petition in favor of a similar bill from 2007 that I found, and the accompanying sample bill, apparently promoted by Discovery.org, which is the website of the Discovery Institute. According to Wikipedia, “In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues “demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions”, and the institute’s manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to “reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”:

Do you want to defend the academic freedom of teachers and students to study all of the relevant scientific information relating to evolution?

In many states teachers, students, and even college professors have faced intimidation and retaliation when they attempt to discuss scientific criticisms pertaining to evolution. This assault on academic freedom is antithetical to our traditions as a free society and to the progress of science itself, which depends on robust debate and critical inquiry. It is entirely appropriate for the government to ensure that teachers and students have the right to freely discuss the scientific debates over evolution in an appropriate manner.

Here is a sample academic freedom bill that would protect the rights of teachers and students to study the full range of scientific views on Darwinian evolution.

If you have questions please e-mail Casey Luskin, cluskin@discovery.org, program officer for public policy and legal affairs at Discovery Institute.

MODEL ACADEMIC FREEDOM STATUTE ON EVOLUTION
[version: 9/7/2007]

SYNOPSIS: Existing law does not expressly provide a right nor does it expressly protect tenure and employment for a public school teacher or teacher at an institution of higher education for presenting scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution. In addition, students are not expressly provided a right to positions on views regarding biological and chemical evolution.
This bill would expressly provide rights and protection for teachers concerning scientific presentations on views regarding biological and chemical evolution and students concerning their positions on views regarding biological and chemical evolution.

A BILL
TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT

Providing teacher rights and protection for a public school teacher or a teacher at an institution of higher education to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution in applicable curricula or in a course of learning; providing employment and tenure protection and protection against discrimination for any public school teacher or teacher at a public institution of higher education related to the presentation of such information; and providing student protection for subscribing to a particular position on views regarding biological or chemical evolution.
BE IT ENACTED BY ____________:
Section 1. This law shall be known as the “Academic Freedom Act.”
Section 2. The Legislature finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of teachers identified by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard to present scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories. The Legislature further finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of students to hold a position on views regarding biological or chemical evolution. The Legislature further finds that the topic of evolution has generated intense controversy, lawsuits and threats of lawsuits, where some lower courts such as Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School Board, have created confusion about the rights of teachers and students to hold differing views about scientific controversies and express those views without fear of adverse employment or academic consequences. Finally, the Legislature finds that school districts and school administrators should not bear the primary burden of defending the academic freedom of teachers and students to discuss the topics of biological or chemical evolution. It is the intent of the Legislature that this act expressly protects those rights.
Section 3. Every K-12 public school teacher or teacher or instructor in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education, or in any graduate or adult program thereof, in the State of ______________, shall have the affirmative right and freedom to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution.
Section 4. No K-12 public school teacher or teacher or instructor in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education, or in any graduate or adult program thereof, in the State of ___________, shall be terminated, disciplined, denied tenure, or otherwise discriminated against for presenting scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological or chemical evolution in any curricula or course of learning, provided, with respect to K-12 teachers, the [insert official title of state’s science standards] has been taught as appropriate to the grade and subject assignment.
Section 5. Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution of higher education shall be penalized in any way because he or she may subscribe to a particular position on any views regarding biological or chemical evolution.
Section 6. The rights and privileges contained in this act apply when the subject of biological or chemical origins is part of the curriculum. Nothing in this act shall be construed as requiring or encouraging any change in the state curriculum standards in K-12 public schools, nor shall any provision of this act be construed as prescribing the curricular content of any course in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education in the state.
Section 7. Nothing in this act shall be construed as promoting any religious doctrine, promoting discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promoting discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.
Section 8. This act shall become effective on the first day of the third month following its passage and approval by the Governor, or its otherwise becoming law.

This appears to be the actual bill presented:

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

1st Session of the 52nd Legislature (2009)

SENATE BILL 320 By: Brogdon

AS INTRODUCED

An Act relating to schools; creating the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act; providing short title; stating Legislative findings; directing State Board of Education, district boards of education, and certain administrators to create certain environment within schools; permitting teachers to help students understand certain information about scientific theories; disallowing State Board of Education, district boards of education, and certain administrators from prohibiting teachers from helping students understand certain information about scientific theories; providing for evaluation of students based on understanding of course materials; prohibiting penalizing of students for holding certain position on scientific theories; prohibiting certain construction; directing State Department of Education to provide certain notification; directing superintendents to disseminate certain information; providing for codification; providing an effective date; and declaring an emergency.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:

SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 27-101 of Title 70, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

A. This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act”.

B. The Oklahoma Legislature finds that an important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills they need in order to become intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens. The Legislature further finds that the teaching of some scientific subjects, such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy, and that some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects.

C. The State Board of Education, district boards of education, district superintendents and administrators, and public school principals and administrators shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues. Such educational authorities in this state shall also endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies. Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.

D. Neither the State Board of Education, nor any district board of education, district superintendent or administrator, or public school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a school district in this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.

E. Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular position on scientific theories.

F. This act only protects the teaching of scientific information, and this act shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion. On the contrary, the intent is to create an environment in which both the teacher and students can openly and objectively discuss the facts and observations of science, and the assumptions that underlie their interpretation.

G. By no later than the start of the 2009-2010 school year, the State Department Education shall notify all district superintendents of the provisions of this act. Each superintendent shall then disseminate to all employees within the district a copy of the provisions of this act.

SECTION 2. This act shall become effective July 1, 2009.

SECTION 3. It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval.

Let’s celebrate the success of reason, but mourn the fact that it came so close, and you know someone will try to pass another of these laws every year in this and other states.

UPDATE via TUIBGuy:

State Representative Thomsen has introduced this bill:…

A Resolution opposing the invitation to Richard Dawkins to speak on campus; encouraging the University of Oklahoma to engage in a certain discussion of certain scientific theories; and directing distribution…..

WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma, as a part of the Darwin 2009 Project, has invited as a public speaker on campus, Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published opinions, as represented in his 2006 book “The God Delusion”, and public statements on the theory of evolution demonstrate an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking and are views that are not shared and are not representative of the thinking of a majority of the citizens of Oklahoma;…

THAT the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.

THAT the Oklahoma House of Representatives encourages the University of Oklahoma to engage in an open, dignified, and fair discussion of the Darwinian theory of evolution and all other scientific theories which is the approach that a public institution should be engaged in and which represents the desire and interest of the citizens of Oklahoma.

TUIBGuy’s responds, in part,

What the legislator fails to understand that a fair discussion of the alternative theories of evolution would be something he doesn’t like at all. I hope that he is proud, though, in his quixotic quest to keep the likes of Dawkins out of Oklahoma, to show how much he values Academic Freedom.

Head on over there for the full text of the bill and the rest of the response.

State of Unintelligent Design

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Government, Logic, Religion, Science | 4 Comments »

More Fucking Anti-Profanity Bill Bullshit

Friday, January 23rd, 2009

What the fuck is profanity, and why do elected officials keep pushing to have “it” banned? Same officials, no doubt, that push for the banning of various books they don’t like, as well.

BoingBoing brought to my attention the newest farce: South Carolina state Senator (and fucking coward) Robert Ford tries to pass a law there to outlaw profanity. Unknown what he means by profanity, but I’m sure it will come down either to a list of the top seven or so words, or some subjective standard passed off to resemble a generally objective standard, like “reasonably interpreted to be offensive or perverse.” Up to five years in jail or fines up to $5,000 for a mere utterance, because, apparently “…the First Amendment is not absolute… You cannot say whatever you want whenever you want to.”

I call him coward because he’s afraid of words. By fearing words, those words become empowered. Many used to fear the word “damn” because it was thought to be the curse prohibited in the bible (yes, most of this puritan bullshit has origins in religious scripture — surprise!), and supposedly before that, the mere use of the word “God” (as in “God damn”) was considered the curse (using God’s name in vain). Look through television history. I remember a time where “God damn” wasn’t bleeped. Then they bleeped only “damn.” Now they bleep only “God.” I wonder how many innocent souls were forever psychologically scarred (and damned to eternal hell) by our obvious mis-bleeping early on.

On a similar note, Greta Christina asks why our society and world is obsessed with putting restrictions on various manifestations of sexuality. I personally think it’s because the shitheads who come up with such restrictions are closeted homosexuals, BDSMs, pedophiles, or are just plain sexless. And they carry that down generation to generation by claiming that their God watches all the perverted little things they do, and the threat of hell is just too much for them. Moreso, though, it follows the tradition of religious hypocrisy and totalitarianism. It’s just a very effective way to control others through fear and intimidation. We really need to purge our world of this.

(Love you, Greta!)

State of Protest

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Government, Religion | 5 Comments »

Oath, Shmoath. Obama was President at Noon

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009

Yes, so some idiots are asserting that Obama is not President until he swears the correct oath. (And some not so idiots are still asserting that Chief Justice Roberts had no authority to modify the language of the oath with “so help me God,” and that could invalidate at least the oath, although there’s no prohibition against Obama adding his own bit at the end). Indeed, the Constitution states rather clearly in Article II, Clause 8:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— ‘‘I do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’’

That’s either modified or made obsolete by Section 1 of the 20th Amendment, which states:

The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Some experts and historians claim that as of noon, power automatically switches from outgoing to incoming presidents. To me, that makes the most sense. Better to have a president in office than have a hiatus where the question arises regarding whether the Vice President is temporarily the President, whether during the hiatus, the outgoing President is president, or whether there is no president.

I think, though, that this issue has already been considered and fairly determined by the Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution: Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States: Supplements to the 2002 Edition, found on the GPO Access website.

The annotations for the Oath:

What is the time relationship between a President’s assumption of office and his taking the oath? Apparently, the former comes first, this answer appearing to be the assumption of the language of the clause. The Second Congress assumed that President Washington took office on March 4, 1789, (107) although he did not take the oath until the following April 30.

That the oath the President is required to take might be considered to add anything to the powers of the President, because of his obligation to ‘‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,’’ might appear to be rather a fanciful idea. But in President Jackson’s message announcing his veto of the act renewing the Bank of the United States there is language which suggests that the President has the right to refuse to enforce both statutes and judicial decisions based on his own independent decision that they were unwarranted by the Constitution. (108) The idea next turned up in a message by President Lincoln justifying his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus without obtaining congressional authorization. (109) And counsel to President Johnson during his impeachment trial adverted to the theory, but only in passing. (110) Beyond these isolated instances, it does not appear to be seriously contended that the oath adds anything to the President’s powers.

107: Act of March 1, 1792, 1 Stat. 239, § 12.
108: 2 J. Richardson, supra at 576. Chief Justice Taney, who as a member of
Jackson’s Cabinet had drafted the message, later repudiated this possible reading
of the message. 2 C. WARREN, THE SUPREME COURT IN UNITED STATES HISTORY 223-
224 (1926).
109: 6 J. Richardson, supra at 25.
110: 2 TRIAL OF ANDREW JOHNSON 200, 293, 296 (1868).

If that’s not clear enough, I think we would need a very strong reason not to assume Obama is and was President of the United States the moment the clock struck noon. Something stronger than a slip of the tongue.

Of course, if I were he, I’d probably recite it again for good measure. Can’t be too careful.

UPDATE: Obama retook the oath. With NO BIBLE! Doesn’t that invalidate it in the eyes of all Christians? An abundance of caution, indeed.

UPDATE: MSNBC interviews Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School professor who indicates that the do-over was unnecessary, and that under the 20th Amendment, the successors take over immediately at noon. He also reminds us that Taft took an incorrect oath, and never retook it. Again, the reference to an “abundance of caution.” Professor Tribe humorously recalls that Chief Justice Roberts was a student of his, and shouldn’t be prone to making such a mistake. (Obama was also a student of his.)

President Barack Obama

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Government | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries